To display this YouTube content, you must allow advertising and audience measurement cookies.
An extension on your browser appears to be blocking the video player from loading. In order to view this content, you must disable it on this site.
First modification: 08/04/2026 - 04:05
A coalition of 25 states, mostly governed by Democrats, sued Donald Trump's government over new tariffs of between 10% and 12.5% applied to 60 trading partners. The states maintain that the White House is using forced labor as a pretext to revive a tariff policy that has already been questioned by the courts.
Donald Trump's trade offensive once again has an open front in the United States courts. 25 states, practically all governed by Democrats, sued the federal government this Monday, August 3, to try to stop the new tariffs imposed by the Republican Administration on dozens of trade partners.
The lawsuit was filed before the United States Court of International Trade and maintains that the president is exceeding his powers by using trade regulations to impose levies of global reach.
The states question, in particular, that the White House has used allegations of forced labor in international supply chains as grounds for imposing new taxes on imports.
The tariffs, announced on July 23 and in force since the 24th, establish rates of between 10% and 12.5% on products from 60 economies, including the European Union, China, Canada, Mexico, Colombia and other important Washington trading partners.
Read alsoThe tariff war is back: what you need to know about Trump's measure and how it threatens the US economy.
The Trump Administration maintains that these countries do not have sufficient measures to prevent the entry or circulation of goods produced through forced labor.
But for the plaintiff states there is a disconnection between that justification and the breadth of the measures. In their arguments, they claim that there is no rational relationship between the alleged problem of forced labor and the imposition of widespread tariffs.
According to the coalition, the investigations by the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the USTR, were an attempt to build a legal justification to revive Trump's tariff strategy.
A tariff policy that revives
The current dispute is the latest chapter in a trade battle that began virtually with Trump's return to the White House.
On April 2, 2025, the president announced the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs, with a base rate of 10% and much higher levies for certain countries. In the case of China, they exceeded 120% during the trade escalation. Trump presented the strategy as a tool to correct what he sees as decades of unfavorable trade relations for the United States.
However, that first tariff structure ended up facing the courts. In February 2026, the Supreme Court determined that the emergency economic powers law used by Trump, known as IEEPA, did not give him authority to impose such tariffs so broadly.
The Administration then looked for another way. It temporarily replaced those levies with a 10% global tariff, this time based on Section 122 of the Trade Law, a provision that allows certain trade restrictions to be established for a limited period. That mechanism expired on July 24.
And practically at the same time that that tariff disappeared, the new scheme based on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 came into force. This rule allows responding to trade practices that Washington considers unfair or discriminatory, but it has traditionally been used for more specific measures.
Read alsoThe Trump Government imposes new tariffs on 60 economies for alleged negligence regarding forced labor
Immortal tariffs?
For the Republican Administration, the new structure is legally different from the tariffs that were annulled and responds to investigations carried out by the USTR on the policies of 60 economies regarding forced labor.
For the plaintiff states, on the other hand, it is a new way to achieve practically the same result: maintaining a broad tariff barrier on US imports.
The strategy also fits with the trade policy that Trump has defended since the beginning of his second term: using tariffs as a pressure mechanism to obtain concessions from other governments.
The president has argued that the United States has been harmed for decades by its trading partners and that levies can be used as a negotiating tool.
The new judicial battle thus confronts two interpretations of the same policy. For Washington, Section 301 offers a different, research-backed legal basis for trade practices considered unfair.
For the 25 states, these investigations were hasty and biased and constitute, according to their allegations, an attempt to reconstruct, through another regulation, the tariff scheme that the courts had already questioned.
Read alsoTrump activates 25% tariffs against Brazil and unleashes trade tension
With information from Reuters and AFP.
Related keywords
The content you requested does not exist or is no longer available.
